Verified answer

A lot of chagall's quotes I find interseting, some just plain wrong

"We all know that a good person can be a bad artist. But no one will ever be a genuine artist unless he is a great human being and thus also a good one."

Got to say that is just tommy rot

But your question might be about the nature of "genius" rather than chegall

To me genius is a much over-used word. we live in times where pop artistes are labelled geniuses. To me there are two types of genius the "ordinary genius" , and the "true genius". An "ordinary genius" is someone who you and I could be like if only we were a thousand times smarter, but the "true genius" we could never be like even if our smartness were infinitely multiplied. True geniuses are as rare as hen's teeth.

Now would I consider Schubert a "true genius" ? The fact that I have to think about this, immediately tells me , probably not.

Beethoven, I so want him to be considered as a true genius , but there are so many flaws . If he had only written the 32 piano sonatas..maybe.

Mozart, the operas are wonderful, he was a genius, but do his works shout genius? With Mozart I should like a few more flaws ( he says contradicting himself!)

Bach is interesting, his inevitability and the fact that he has been so well studied, ( even I can write a pseudo-Bach chorale) colours our (my?) judgement. i think that he towers above Beethoven , Mozart and Schubert combined... Is he a "true genius"?....as near as damn it !

The outstanding "true genius" ( to me) is Richard Wagner, It would probably take me several hundred pages to detail why, suffice it to say , I just know.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the nature of genius is somewhat problematical, and quite possibly intensely subjective.

I congratulate you on a thought-provoking question that has both diverted and stimulated me immensely.

Well, I couldn't agree with this point more. Schubert's music is indeed a miracle because of the great maturity behind his works. He died of syphilis at age 31 and the music he wrote in his late teens and early teens resemble the maturity of a much older composer.

I've been playing piano for 16 years and have listened to classical music all of my life. I have a vast collection of cd's and works from all of the Viennese composers. When I hear Schubert I am always awe struck by his amazing and beautiful compositions. His darker pieces are so visceral and breathtaking. He and Beethoven are definitely my favorite of all composers.

You know Schubert admired Beethoven a lot and was often overshadowed during those times by Beethoven's great fame. He is even quoted as saying who could ever compose after Beethoven?! Quite the comment indeed.

But the interesting of all facts is that Beethoven himself had heard Schubert's work shortly before he died and he is quoted as saying "Truly, there is in Schubert a divine spark…he will one day cause a stir in the world". This statement is so true, because Schubert gained posthumous fame and died a poor man. When people began listening to his sophisticated pieces they realized what a great genius he truly was.

Franz Liszt and Schumann also loved Schubert's works. Liszt transcribed many of Schubert's famous lieders and what an epic job he did. Brahms was also an admirer and edited some of his works for posthumous release.

I love all of his works, his beautiful impromptus D899 and D935 (and the later Klavierstucke impromptus), lieders, waltz, string quintets, symphonies, and who could forget his beautiful sonatas, especially his last sonata compositions D958, D959, and D960.

What a tragedy that Mozart and Schubert died so early, the world missed out big time. (oh Chopin's early death is also another tragedy).

Partially. They were all three geniuses obviously; but the other two were miracles also I would contend.

Granted that Schubert in all probability, physically suffered the greatest by far, and continued to compose right up to the end: an amazing feat considering the ravages of syphilis from which he suffered - correct me if I'm wrong on this - and one would think that his mental faculties would have become so greatly impaired, as to make this impossible.

But then Mozart's astounding output of one masterpiece right after another in such a relatively short life span, would seem to me to also be miraculous.

And that Beethoven survived as long as he did, continuing to compose such great music while living fundamentally the life of a social outcast; so physically unattractive, unloved and feared by many if not most, not to mention his progressive and ultimately total loss of hearing: this is not a miracle?

Alberich

Putting Beethoven and Mozart in the genius category is to me, a no-brainer.

Schubert a miracle -- I like that. Here is a man who's musical training was at best incomplete, yet if you examine his works chronologically, you can see that for each successive work, he seems to have intuited the shortcomings of the previous ones, and at least tried to correct them, with a measure of success. The progress he made with each successive sonata and symphony is remarkable.

In his songwriting, the ability to capture the mood and sense of the lyrics, is of course, legendary. But in his longer works, his discursive style never left him, unfortunately. He tends to get lost, losing sight of pacing and proportion. A listener can tire easily of empty passage work, especially in the piano sonatas. This is because, I think, that he was a tune writer -- able to spin out beautifully structured melodies, which were, because of the "completeness" of their nature, undevelopable -- if that is a word. But their charm is inescapable, and the word "Schubertian" is in the lexicon.

Nice quote.

Glinzek

beethoven had lead psychosis which was found in hair samples taken,his crazy behaviour was understandable in light of this.I thought,if "amadeus" was accurate,that beethoven was predicted by mozart to one day "make a great noise in the world"

Yeah, that's pretty dead-on accurate.